The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. There are favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s recognition of the instant crime and reflection of the Defendant, and the fact that driving vehicles are covered by comprehensive insurance.

However, the defendant caused the accident of this case by negligence in violation of the signal, and caused two bodily injury to the victim, and did not receive any instruction from the victims.

The defendant has been punished twice due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (the fine of 3 million won in 2009, the fine of 4 million won in 2010).

In light of the above unfavorable circumstances and other conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading to the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., and the fact that it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the defendant's appeal to turn to the left at the Busan Flap's seat on the 1st page of the judgment of the court below.

“I am to go to the Busan Flazon and turn to the left at the 2th seat of the Hoho market.”

The phrase “injury to the right side in which approximately two weeks’ treatment is required” is apparent that it is a clerical error in the column 10 to 11 of the page 2, and each ex officio correction is made, since it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the column 2: “Influence of 1% of the inner part that needs to be treated for approximately two weeks’ treatment, such as a mathical image, etc., on the right side.”